Related Articles

Share this Page

Get The Word Out

By Wendy Chretien

09/02/08

With a plethora of notification programs and feature sets available, the real challenges are which system to select and deciding how to enroll your campus community.

NO ONE SHOULD BE SURPRISED that emergency notification has become a critical
component of every higher education institution's overall emergency plan. Unfortunately, incidents
across the country have galvanized campus safety officials to find more ways to notify their campus
populations. Nearly everyone is familiar with the Virginia Tech shootings, but sadly that is only one
of several similar incidents in the past few years, including a shooting at Northern Illinois University in February. Emergency notification systems can help get and keep students, faculty members, and staff
out of harm's way.

Not only is it good common sense to have a notification system in place, today it also is the law. The
federal Clery Act originally passed in 1990 and amended in 1992, 1998, and 2000 (previously known
as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act) includes a "timely warning" provision that requires
campuses to alert the community about crimes that pose a serious or continuing threat to safety. For
more information about the Clery Act, The Handbook for Campus Crime Reporting is available to download from the US Department of Education.

Watch the Triggers

Violent acts are not the only grounds for
sending out an emergency alert. Others
include severe weather, bomb threats,
hazardous materials spills, gas leaks,
and fires. Depending on your campus
policies, additional triggering events
might include power outages, road closures,
missing persons, flooding, traffic
accidents, train derailments, or severe
disease outbreaks. In the event of a
major snowfall, for example, your campus
roadways may be clear, but parking
lots may not have been plowed. The
commuting population would want to
know about this in advance.

Some institutions also will send messages
about events that may be less
immediately threatening but also important
to the community, such as heating
or cooling failures in buildings, food
poisoning incidents, water shortages,
and/or inmate escapes from nearby prisons.
Today, most colleges and universities
assess incidents carefully and do
not indiscriminately send out a large
number of alerts; to do so may cause
recipients to ignore them or opt out of
the notification system (the "cry wolf"
syndrome).

System Capabilities

THE MORE AVENUES OF CONTACT you can provide, the more likely individuals on campus are to get the
message. In August 2007, for instance, Wake Forest University (NC) installed a steam whistle on campus to
alert the community to consult its other campus information systems for emergency information.

The good news is that there now are
abundant options in emergency notification.
Distinguishing features among
offerings include: whether the system
is maintained in-house or outsourced;
the means used to contact campus
community members; whether alerts
can be targeted to specific groups; and
whether the emergency notification system
stands alone or is integrated with
other campus systems.

In-house vs. outsourced. Institutions
with large IT staffs are more likely to
opt for a system that resides on campus
because they have sufficient resources
to implement it and provide ongoing
support. The primary benefit of an inhouse
system is the ability to directly
link the notification system to existing
records or directory systems, though
this may require custom programming.
In-house systems typically have a "live"
link to one of those other databases so
that contact data are always as current
as the data in those systems.

Vendors that offer outsourced systems
argue they can guarantee greater
uptime, as their servers are housed in
data centers that have multiple highbandwidth
connections to the internet,
redundant electrical power and cooling,
and are well-secured. Many of these
providers also offer 24/7 phone and
online support (which your on-campus
staffing situation may not allow for).
You would want to verify all such
claims as part of your due diligence in
selecting a system.

If cell phones are routinely muted in classrooms,
consider visual alert messages delivered via
networked classroom projectors-- an effective
method, since the alert message takes precedence
over whatever is visible on the screen, rather like the
television emergency warning system.

Targeted alerts. A number of notification
systems (and especially those
that have been around the longest) operate
on an all-or-nothing basis: They
will send an alert to every person subscribed
to the system. This guarantees
that everyone registered with the system
receives the alert, and some feel
this reduces the institution's liability.
However, the trend is toward systems
that allow campuses to create custom
groups, so that alerts can be sent only to
those affected. These targeted systems
still permit a message to be sent to the
entire list, but also offer administrators
additional options. For example, if there
were a power outage in just one faculty/staff office building, a message could
be sent just to individuals with offices
in that building.

Contact Methods

Clearly, the more avenues of contact
you can provide, the more
likely individuals on campus are
to get the message. (A current
buzzword in the technology industry
is "multimodal": Firms selling
notification systems define this as
having multiple methods via
which to contact your campus
community members.)

Sirens and rudimentary alerts. Early types of notification systems
included sirens or bells to indicate
an emergency was imminent or in
progress; examples still in use are
tornado warning sirens and fire
alarm systems. In some cases,
schools are making use of these
more basic alerts to push campus
community members to other
notification systems. In August
2007, for instance, Wake Forest
University (NC) installed a steam whistle on campus to alert the community
to consult its other campus
information systems for emergency
information. A whistle or siren is something
nearly everyone understands and
is a system for which campus members
do not need to be registered or carry any
sort of device. However, outdoor systems
sometimes cannot be heard inside
buildings, and the amount of information
you can impart with such systems is
very limited-- basically, just that something
serious is occurring, and people
need to take cover or exit a building or
area quickly.

Cellular and landline phones. Today's technology, however, facilitates
a much greater range of options with
which to contact people and provide
them with necessary and useful information.
Most of us first think of phones
(whether hardwired or cellular) as the
best means of contact. In this day and
age, higher education institutions no
longer can depend on campus community
members' homes being equipped
with hardwired phones; thus contacting
a combination of the two phone types
provides greater likelihood of reaching
most of the community. As we have
learned by now, students are quite likely
to communicate by text message and
often prefer that mode of contact, but
text messages generally are limited to
160 characters and some providers cap
the number of simultaneous messages,
so be sure to check with providers you
intend to use for this method. Text messaging
also is a good alternative for
reaching people who are hearingimpaired,
but it would require that they
actually own cell phones. Campuses
today still are not at 100 percent mobile
phone ownership among faculty, staff,
and students, even if they are getting
close. And not all cell phone owners are
subscribed to or use text messaging.

Classroom alert setups. What about
notifying those in classrooms? Some
instructors request that students silence
their cell phones during class as a courtesy
to all, in which case even a text
message might not be noticed. In such
instances, perhaps a vibrating feature
can alert individuals, but there are additional
alternatives: These include overhead
speaker systems and visual alert
messages delivered via classroom projectors.
The latter requires the projector
systems to be networked and centrally
managed (see "Centralized Control,"
CT June 2008). This method can
be very effective since the alert message
takes precedence over whatever is visible
on the screen at the time of the incident
or event, rather like the television
emergency warning system. (Another
advantage of this notification method:
It's not audible. If the urgent situation is
caused by criminals or terrorists on
campus, they would not be aware that a
warning was being broadcast unless
they were in one of the classrooms.) Hitachi, for one,
advertises projector models with a proprietary
"e-Shot" feature that provides
this functionality. But campus television
systems with local programming
capabilities can be used to broadcast
emergency messages, as well, and this
communication method is yet another
one employed by Wake Forest, among
other institutions.

E-mail or 'pushed' computer messaging. Messages also can be pushed out
to registered computers via e-mail or
other specialized software packages,
allowing instructors and students to view
the alert while class is in session. When
considering this option, however, be
aware that e-mail may be ignored or running
in the background, and thus it may
be more beneficial to utilize a system that
appears "on top of" whatever is displayed
on the user's monitor. Such systems
require that a small software package be
downloaded to each user's computer. Two
options in the desktop alerting arena are
BIA Information Network's ActiveAccess and NetSupport Notify. ActiveAccess allows institutions
to private-label the application. The
George Washington University (DC),
for instance, implemented this solution
as GW Alert. The product resides as a
small icon on the bottom right-hand
corner of all users' computer desktops.
Daily, it provides temperature and
weather reports, and access to GW
News and other news feeds. But when
activated during a crisis, a text crawler
runs at the bottom of computer screens, and a graphical alert provides additional
instructions.

NetSupport Notify's latest version
includes an option to add
audible alerts, can be centrally
managed via Microsoft's Active Directory
policies, and can target alerts to
selected departments. The NetSupport
Notify package supports both
Windows and Mac desktops, as well as Citrix clients.

The George Washington University's (DC) GW Alert
resides as a small icon on the bottom right-hand corner of
all users' computer desktops. Daily, it provides temperature
and weather reports, and access to GW News and other
news feeds. But when activated during a crisis, a text
crawler runs at the bottom of computer screens,
and a graphical alert provides additional instructions.

Speaker systems. To provide
more specific and useful information
about emergencies to those in
outdoor venues, there are now
speaker systems that provide truly
intelligible voice quality-- no more
straining to decipher words. An
advantage of this type of notification
is that messages in multiple
languages can be broadcast, as well
as tones/sirens. One example is ADT's Clear Warning
system, which utilizes arrays of speakers
attached to light poles or building structures.
(For those who know a bit about
sound and voice intelligibility, these new
systems have a Common Intelligibility
Scale [CIS] rating of .95 to 1.0.) The
command-center-unit component of
ADT's system can interface with video
surveillance systems, as well.

IP phone alerts. If your campus has an
IP telephone system, there are packages
available to send alerts via the phones,
both by ringing and by scrolling messages
on the display. You also can add
IP-based public address speakers to the
system, to deliver messages throughout
buildings. Brandeis University (NY),
the University of Louisville (KY), and
the Kentucky Community and Technical
College System use the InformaCast
system from CDW Berbee for just such paging.

Digital signage. Yet another alert
vector ideal for message broadcasting is
that of digital signage/bulletin boards.
Some of these systems can be linked to
other alerting systems, avoiding manual
generation of an additional message,
and providing yet another method of
reaching the campus community.
Again, when choosing a notification
system, carefully consider a variety of
methods to reach your community; most
people would rather learn about an
emergency from multiple sources, than
not hear about it at all.

Standalone or Integrated?

BY CONSOLIDATING DATA from its SunGard Banner student information and Oracle PeopleSoft HR systems,
as well as gathering student contact information during registration, Georgia State University hopes to
enroll at least 75 percent of all personnel in its emergency notification system.

Standalone systems generally are quick
to implement and often less expensive
than systems that integrate with existing
campus applications. The primary disadvantage
of disparate systems is that
contact information needs to be updated
separately from other sources of current
data, such as student information systems
and human resources systems.
Tying those databases directly to an
emergency notification system can eliminate
the need to make duplicative
changes to individuals' contact information.
Another option for integration is to
connect the emergency notification system
to the network directory system,
e.g., Microsoft's Active Directory, Novell's
eDirectory, or
Apple's Open Directory. Assuming your
directory system is already linked to your
other data sources, this option is the easiest
integration method to undertake, to
ensure the data in the emergency notification
system are up-to-date. Keep in
mind this does not guarantee accuracy of
the data, only currency. (Note that if your
campus is among those that have implemented
a federated identity management
system, a standalone emergency notification
system might violate established
security policies.)

Another line of integration would be
to the campus building security system.
Some offerings allow building intrusion
alarm systems to be tied into the alerting
system such that building lockdowns
can be triggered automatically.

Who's Using What?

WANT TO GET FIRST-PERSON FEEDBACK on today's emergency notification tech products?
Check out the case studies in our story, and for more about which higher ed institutions are opting
for various solutions, scan the listing below before you build your own short list.

US Air Force Academy (CO) technologists and administrators have opted for AtHoc IWSAlerts for use on campus at Maxwell Air Force Base. The product interfaces
with public address systems, sirens, and phones, and sends desktop alerts to PCs
and handheld devices; it also can send text messages.

The state of Louisiana has placed three alerting products on a state contract from which
Louisiana colleges and universities can purchase. FirstCall Interactive Network, Omnilert's e2Campus product, and MIR3 inCampusAlert were selected. Each product is used by various colleges and universities throughout
the US.

Santa Fe Community College (FL) has used its Alcatel-Lucent telephony network to notify the campus community about a man with a gun on campus. The
system can deliver messages in seven ways.

Western Kentucky University has implemented the Avaya Communication Manager system, and is now reaching nearly 90 percent of the campus community.

The University of Notre Dame (IN) has selected Connect-Ed (recently purchased by Blackboard) for emergency communications via e-mail,
voice, and text messages.

17 Virginia community colleges, George Mason University (VA), UC-Santa Barbara, and
the University of New Hampshire have deployed Cooper Notification's Roam Secure Alert
Network (RSAN).

Butler University in Indianapolis is now using the Honeywell Building Solutions Instant
Alert Plus service, which allows alert recipients to respond via a
menu of options and provides call receipts to allow administrators to see if a call was sent
and received.

The University of Tampa (FL) has selected ReadyAlert, which provides
a base alert notification system and several available options such as text-to-voice conversion
and e-mail attachments.

Getting the Word out--
in the Real World

GSU pilot bridges gaps. Mike Raderstorf,
director of emergency management
for Georgia State University (enrollment: 27,000), went through a
solution selection process with an emergency
management group of senior-level
faculty and administrators. They worked
through the process and made a decision
quickly, based on multiple factors, not
the least of which was that a vast majority
of GSU students are commuters and the campus is in the heart of downtown
Atlanta. GSU chose FirstResponder
by Risk Mitigation Systems,
and moved quickly to conduct a
pilot. Raderstorf notes that one
reason the university selected
FirstResponder was that it formulated
communications procedures
around specific emergency action
plans, and bridged the gap between
communications and command &
control.

GSU now has completed its
pilot and will contract with Risk
Mitigation Systems at a cost of
approximately $1.50 per person,
per year. GSU plans to develop a
consolidated personnel registry
using both its SunGard Banner student
information and Oracle PeopleSoft HR
systems, and
then use the included automated
upload feature to bring the data
into FirstResponder. Student contact
information will be gathered
during registration. Using these
techniques, GSU hopes to enroll at
least 75 percent of all personnel in
its emergency notification system.
In terms of time to implement the
system, Raderstorf notes the system
was "immediately available"
to create generic call groups and
notification plans. But he adds that GSU
wants to take advantage of the integration
with emergency action plans, and
so is beginning to import those, which
will take additional time.

Quick implementation and lower
cost. Rave Wireless is the emergency notification
solution the University of Colorado at
Boulder, Saint Michael's College of
Vermont, and the University of
Louisville have selected, following on
the heels of Montclair State University (NJ), which was the first higher education
institution to use the system.
(Montclair State received an award from
the nonprofit Security on Campus organization,
for its innovative use of the solution,
and was recognized as a 2007 Campus
Technology Innovator in the Cellular/
Mobile category.) The Rave
Wireless system can send messages
via phone, e-mail, text, and RSS--
up to 9,000 texts and 8,000 calls per
minute. On May 22, 2008, around
225,000 text messages went out
to individuals in Colorado and
Wyoming, warning about tornado activity
in the region.

According to Malinda Miller-Huey,
director of web communications at the
University of Colorado at Boulder, the
institution selected Rave Wireless for
two primary reasons: quick implementation,
and cost. Though Miller-Huey
doesn't recommend it, UCB implemented
the system in less than a month and
completed the installation three days
before classes started in August 2007.
(Importantly, the Rave Wireless messaging
system is part of an overall
emergency communications plan that
includes sirens, UCB's portal, e-mail,
and a telephone information line.) UCB
has an opt-in system and uses ads and
e-mails to promote enrollment in the notification system. When students sign
up for classes, they are prompted to verify
or update their contact information--
a move that has led to a student
enrollment rate of more than 90 percent.
Unhappily, the university was the scene
of a stabbing incident the very first day
of school but, fortunately, Miller-Huey
and her team had already discussed
scripts for emergency message content
and so were able to activate the system
right away. UCB has written guidelines
regarding who can approve and send out
emergency messages; currently a dozen
or so people on campus are trained and
authorized to perform this function.

The University of Colorado at Boulder has an opt-in
emergency notification system and uses ads and e-mails
to promote participation. When students sign up for
classes, they are prompted to verify or update their
contact information-- a move that has led to a student
enrollment rate of more than 90 percent.

Peter Soons, director of safety and
security at Saint Michael's College
(enrollment just under 2,000), chose
Rave Wireless partly because the college
preferred not to be wholly reliant
on its own infrastructure. (The college's
emergency notification system is part of
an overall continuity plan, which also
utilizes campus radio and TV stations,
the campus website, and intercoms to
communicate emergency information to
its population.) The system took about
two months to implement, which
included making a decision about
whether it would be mandatory or optin.
Saint Michael's decided to register
all of its students' phone and e-mail
addresses. Once that was complete, students
were invited to confirm their registrations
and contact information.
More than 80 percent did so, but regardless
of whether they confirm, the campus
sends emergency messages to all.
Soons plans to upload contact information
each fall to keep it current. Interestingly,
the college is the primary
emergency medical service (ambulance/rescue) provider for four nearby towns.
It has set up a special distribution group
within the Rave Wireless system to
allow fire and rescue officers to send
text messages to others within the
group. Going forward, Saint Michael's
plans to define more groups for "narrowcasts"
that would go out just to those
affected; for example, all students in one
residence hall.

People, process, and tools for
Louisville. As the assistant director of
the Department of Environmental
Health and Safety for the University of
Louisville, Dennis Sullivan is responsible
for the institution's emergency planning.
Sullivan reports that when the
university decided to implement a
notification system, the IT department
performed the initial research and presented
a number of options to a committee
comprised of Public Safety,
Communications & Marketing, IT, and
Student Life representatives. The system
cost for the first year was $36,000
for up to 30,000 enrollees. Sullivan says
he was disappointed in the early enrollment
in the system (under 8,000 of
21,000 students) for the first year, so to
get that figure up, this year's freshmen
must twice elect to opt out of the system
when enrolling for classes. And in May
of this year, the university developed a
set of guidelines for its alert system. The
concise document describes nine modes
of mass communications and clearly
identifies the individuals authorized to
approve emergency messages in various
emergency scenarios. Among the nine
methods described are the installation
of NOAA (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) weather radios on every floor of
every campus building, and a collaborative
effort with the city of Louisville to
post messages on digital displays along
the area's interstate highways.

Part of the Bigger Picture

While we've focused solely on notification
here, keep in mind that notification
is only a single aspect of an overall
campus security plan. In fact, even
emergency notification itself is comprised
of several components. For more
on this, see August 2007's "7 Best Practices
for Emergency Notification",
which details many of those components.
And for more on the big picture
of campus security in 2008-2009, stay
tuned to Campus Technology print and
online.